Page images
PDF
EPUB

ognized that a multifaceted approach to this problem is necessary. For that reason, we have supported legislation on such interrelated programs as elementary and secondary education; mental retardation diagnosis and treatment for the very young; child abuse prevention; day-care for the children of working mothers; also, joining in an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court's celebrated Ginzburg case; filing our own brief in the Supreme Court's first review of juvenile court procedures through the Gault case; advocating for fiscal 1968 the addition of a juvenile delinquency consultant for each of HEW's nine 3 regional offices; and providing initial stimulation for the original Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1961.

It is generally conceded that, while juvenile delinquency cuts across socioeconomic, ethnic, and geographic lines, the increased industrialization and urbanization of our country has provided unfortunate impetus to the increase in delinquency, which now exceeds by four times the increase in our total juvenile = population.

"Social Dynamite" is the term used by Dr. James B. Conant to describe the rapid outstripping of our juvenile delinquency rates over the current increase in total juvenile population. There are now 71 million Americans under 18, accounting for 36 percent of our national population in 1965.1 Of this total, according to F.B.I. Director Hoover, some 4 percent ever get involved in juvenile delinquency problems. However,

"It is reported that persons under 18 years of age comprised 21 percent of all the police arrests of all criminal acts in 1964, and 48 percent of all arrests for the more serious offenses. Of the more than one million youths under 18 arrested, some 697,000 were finally brought to the attention of the juvenile courts. Of these cases, 370,000 were disposed of by the court's staff and 327,000 were disposed of judicially." 2

3

Gaining further perspective on the magnitude of the problem, we are informed that "Of the 400,000 youths in jail last year, 100,000 were imprisoned with hardened criminals." The inevitable implications of physical, emotional, and mental jeopardy to such youths are too well known to need comment. As to why and how this happens,

"Actually, in about three-fourths of the states the youngster may eventually find himself in an adult penal institution as either a direct or an indirect result of juvenile court action. In about four-fifths of the states, his case can be waived to the adult court under certain conditions. In about one-half of the states, after he has been committed to and placed in an institution for juveniles, he may be transferred to an adult penal institution. Also, in a number of states, the juvenile court can commit directly to an adult penal institution. In a recent study, out of 1,087 juvenile courts, 288 or about 26 percent reported that they had the authority to commit directly to an adult penal institution."

In one startling instance of what has happened to the original rehabilitative aims of the juvenile courts, Judge David Bazelon writes,

"In May of 1966 the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia adopted a new policy memorandum outlining the factors which must be considered before a juvenile is waived to the adult court. It is now the juvenile court's stated policy that if treatment is not available the child should be waived. The question raised is clear: Are we to punish someone because the community has not provided the means and facilities for his treatment, and, perhaps, cure?"

The inescapable conclusion to us is that, indeed,

5

"... The child receives the worst of both worlds; that he gets neither the protections afforded to adults nor the solicitous care and regenerative treatment postulated for children."

996

Dedicated to the belief that responsible citizenship can emerge only from the best, instead of the worst, of both worlds for children, the American Parents

1 Current Population Reports, Population Estimates, Series P-25, No. 321, Nov. 30, 1966, Bureau of Census.

2 American Parents Committee brief amicus curiae. In Re Gault, U.S.C. Docket 116. October Term 1966, page 2; from "Juvenile Court Statistics, 1965", U.S. Children's Bureau Statistical Series.

Statement of Attorney General Ramsey Clark before the House Subcommittee on General Education, May 10, 1967.

APC brief In Re Gault, page 15.

"Justice for Juveniles", The New Republic, April 22, 1967, page 16.

Fortas, J., in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 556 (1966).

Committee commends this bill's dual emphasis on prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency.

However, we respectfully urge consideration of the following suggested changes in specific sections of the bill:

TITE I-A, PLANNING, PREVENTIVE, AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES Throughout the bill, there is no single State agency designated to coordinate plans, services, construction of facilities, or training in different communities, through the State. At the present time, one state, Kentucky, has the only state agency with complete responsibility for treatment and rehabilitation programs for delinquent youths, as well as responsibility for child welfare activities. We urge the appointment of such a single State agency by each Governor to coordinate all programs in the proposed legislation. Statewide uniformity-and economy through avoiding duplication of services could thus be achieved, with this one agency given full power to forward each community's plans with analysis and comments for the Secretary's consideration. Similarly, there should be designated by the Secretary a single "intake" unit within HEW, for consideration of recommended plans. Nowhere, certainly, would a single designated unit be more necessary, both at the State and Federal levels, than at the planning stage.

TITLE I-B, REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

The emphasis on "community-based" residential facilities for rehabilitation deserves special commendation. It is generally recognized that total severance of a youth from his home environment tends to reinforce his feeling of ostracism and hardening of hostility. The encouraging reports of the success of "half-way" houses, and other small units, would seem especially worthy of more extensive implementation.

We emphasize "small", in any consideration of constructing detention facilities. and we would reinforce that emphasis by recommending that Federal participation in percentage of construction-costs be lowered to 20 or 25 percent, to dampen the enthusiasm of "bricks-and-mortar" advocates of bigger-and less therspeutic-institutions. We are for smaller and better ones, and more of them as

needed.

With reference to rehabilitative services, the importance of continuing to avoid branding a child as "delinquent" cannot be overemphasized. As the Crime Commission's report states,

"Providing sufficiently specialized services while yet avoiding destructive labeling and stigma poses one of the central dilemmas in the delinquency area.”*

TITLE I-C, PREVENTIVE SERVICES

Perhaps the most elusive of all goals is the prevention of juvenile delinquency. Anyone who recalls laboring over Cicero's tedious sermonizing on "the times, O the morals", may well infer that this problem extends backward through the centuries, yet unsolved. As an ambitious and idealistic program, the prevention of juvenile delinquency must never be abandoned; yet there are those who insist that juvenile delinquency begins with adult delinquency.

When we recall that the revered Dr. Albert Schweitzer insisted there are only 3 ways to teach a child: "By example, example, and example”, we must reflect, as adult citizens, on how good a job we are really doing. We encourage, by tacit permissiveness, increasing emphasis through mass-media on acts of vio lence, perversion, and vicious prejudice. The a-moral acts of some adults are exploited through yellow-journalism, and we seem to forget that "the mind of youth is like a sponge in absorbing, like marble in retaining." Delinquency is often defined as a hierarchy of apathy, beginning with the family, extending through the locality, the state, and the nation. If the process can be reversed, through Federal concern, reaching back down to the family, a major victory

7 See Proceedings: Institute on Youth_Correctional Programs and Facilities. Univ. of Hawaii, Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Development Ctr., Honolulu, 1966. Also, Nationel Parole Institutes: Community residential treatment centers, by Benedict S. Alper: Nationa Council on Crime and Delinquency, New York, 1966.

8 The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, U.S. Gov't. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1967, page 88.

over delinquency-both adult and juvenile-will be won. Some programs have shown particular promise; particularly parent-counseling, job-finding, "Police Aide" work, and forestry camps, and could well be expended through this Title.

TITLE II, RESEARCH AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

The American Parents Committee believes that one of the most critical areas in the current inadequacy of juvenile delinquency services is the lack of available trained personnel in rehabilitation, probation, intake, and corrective work. In the judicial field itself, almost one-fourth of the nation's juvenile judges. are not trained in the law, and more than half of them devote less than onefourth of their time to juvenile and family matters. Also, "Four out of five juvenile courts have no psychologists or psychiatrists available, and one-third have no probation officer or caseworker."10

Appropriations

TITLE III

The proposed legislation puts a price-tage of $25 million for fiscal 1968, for both Titles I and II. The American Parents Committee feels strongly that such an amount pays only lip-service to a problem of such proven magnitude. If this amount were to be used for planning alone, each state-and certainly the District of Columbia should be included—would receive less than $500,000. To extend this amount throughout a state for all the provisions of this bill is an indication of how little importance and priority is attached to one of our country's major problems of the future, as well as of the present.

Definitions

We would urge the inclusion of precise definitions of both "Delinquent" and "In danger of becoming delinquent", in Section 305. We suggest that "Delinquent" should refer to those children so adjudicated by the juvenile court. "In danger of becoming delinquent" should, we feel, refer to those children whose behavior has come to the attention of school, police, or other officials, because of acts or behavior that coud become the subject of a juvenile court petition.

Mr. PUCINSKI. We are very pleased to have the valuable material that you have prepared on this subject presented to us, and I know that you have been working very hard on the Gault case. Your people have submitted a brief in the Gault case, I know.

I wonder if you care to summarize your statement in its entirety at this point. I know you are anxious to get away, so we wanted to accommodate you at this time in consideration to you.

Mrs. MCGARRY. Thank you.

I am Mrs. Barbara D. McGarry, executive director of the American Parents Association, Inc., with a national office in New York City, and I have a Washington office here.

For the past two decades, the problem of juvenile delinquency has had either a direct or tangential bearing on our Federal efforts on behalf of children. Our board of directors and conuselors, all noted in the field of child education and welfare, have recognized a multiphased approach

Mr. PUCINSKI. You are not going to read the whole statement, are you? We have the whole statement in the record at this point. I wondered if you would summarize it briefly.

Mrs. MCGARRY. If I could go to specific sections under the bill, perhaps, sir

Mr. PUCINSKI. Yes.

Biographical Data Survey of Juvenile Court Judges, G.W.U. Center for Behavioral Sciences, 1964. pp. 10, 21. Cited in APC Gault brief, p. 13. 10 Attorney General Clark, Statement to Subcommittee, May 10, 1967.

SO-799-67-34

Mrs. MCGARRY. First, we would like to strongly recommend that there be a single unit designed by the Governor of each State to consider any plans for facilities or training or services that are contained in this bill.

At the present time, as you know, Mr. Chairman, only one State. Kentucky, has such a single State agency. At the same time, we would urge that there be a single intake unit within HEW for consideration of recommended plans forwarded by the State agency so designated. Mr. PUCINSKI. By that statement, I presume you are not stating that local agencies, local communities could not deal directly with the U.S. Secretary providing that the local plan was part of the comprehensive State plan. Are you suggesting that every community in the State would have to channel through a State agency before they could submit a program to Washington for consideration? Or are you merely recommending that such a plan would have to be part of the comprehensive State plan?

The bill now provides that before any local community or agency can be eligible for assistance, under this act, its plan would have to be part of the comprehensive plan. I was wondering if your statement implies all these plans must first go through a State agency, say, the State has to set up an agency, is that what you mean?

Mrs. McGARRY. We feel this would be advisable.

Mr. PUCINSKI. How would you deal with States that do not have such a State agency? Are you suggesting we should have another bureaucracy set up at the State level in order to funnel all these before they could come to Washington? What is wrong with a local agency or local community-let's take Detroit, New York, Philadelphia, Buffalo, St. Louis, or Chicago-that wants to work directly with the Secretary of HEW, wanting to fund a program for its city. What is wrong with that city dealing directly with the Secretary? What is wrong with that concept, rather than requiring that this must go through a State even if the State does not have an agency to deal with this program?

Mrs. McGARRY. We feel there could otherwise, without such a State agency, one home for delinquent boys located 15 or 20 miles from another such boys' home, within a State.

Mr. PUCINSKI. This bill implies now that no plan can be approved that is not part of a comprehensive plan, but what you are trying to say is that the local government could not deal directly with the director of this program in Washington. The local government would have to go to a State agency. I say, what do you do in those States where you don't have a State agency or where the State agency is ineffective?

Why would we preclude a local government from dealing directly with the Federal Government? Why would we say you can't get any assistance unless you go through a State administrator?

Mrs. McGARRY. We say this only to avoid duplication of services. Mr. PUCINSKI. The avoidance of duplication we believe will be accomplished by the proviso that it must be part of a comprehensive plan. It would be detected if it were part of an existing plan. That is the point I am trying to make.

I have noticed several witnesses have mentioned the point you make, but then some of the more knowledgeable people in this field have said such a concept would be unduly restrictive on local communities, and I do agree with them.

Mrs. McGARRY. In title I (b), under rehabilitative services, we would emphasize that construction be generally on a small scale, rather than larger and fewer detention facilities.

We are for smaller and better ones, and more of them as the need is proven.

With reference to rehabilitative services, the importance of continuing to avoid branding a child as a delinquent cannot be overemphasized. This was stressed in this morning's opinion by the Supreme Court in the Gault case.

Under title I (c), preventive services, we would feel that part of the problem of juvenile delinquency is adult delinquency and we must reflect as adult citizens on how good a job we ourselves are doing. We encourage by tacit permission the exploitation of immoral acts of some adults through yellow journalism and forget that the minds of youth absorb this and retain it.

Parent counseling, job finding, police aid work, and forestry camps have shown considerable success in many localities, and others could be expanded under this title.

Under title II, juvenile delinquency services, there is a lack of trained personnel for probation, intake, and corrective work. This view was particularly stressed by Mr. Justice Stewart this morning in his own separate opinion on the Gault case.

As Attorney General Clark has previously pointed out, four out of five juvenile courts have no psychologist or psychiatrist available, no probation workers in one-third of the courts.

Under title III (3), appropriations, we feel $25 million for planning alone would provide less than $500,000 for each State if you exclude the District of Columbia, which we certainly would want to be included. To extend this amount throughout a State for all the provisions of this bill is an indication of how little importance of priority is attached to one of our major problems of the future as well as the present.

Under the definitions we would urge inclusion of a more precise definition of both the word "delinquent" and the phrase "in danger of becoming a delinquent," in section 305.

This concludes my statement.

Mr. PUCINSKI. We are very grateful for this statement, and I am sorry if I sort of sandwiched you in between other witnesses. I know you have a lot to do today, since the decision was just handed down. I am very grateful for your sharing your views with us.

Mrs. McGARRY. Thank you.

May I make one other observation? In Justice Fortas' opinion for the Court, he observed on page 19 a point that is bound to come up in testimony that is forthcoming, about how the juvenile court procedures will be affected by the Gault decision. It is the Supreme Court's feeling that there will be "no impairment of the juvenile court by constitution domestication."

« PreviousContinue »